Octavious88

February 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Your recent edits diff & diff regarding "spiritual experience" and the refeeding syndrome are disruptive. The subject has been discussed extensively before, and did not reach concecsus. T remind you what is being meant with "disruptive editing", here's a quote from WP:DISRUPT:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
• Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just read your comment at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual), and responded. Thanks for your reply there; it makes it clear what you've got in mind. I found them very interesting. Let's try to keep to continue the discussion there; it's interesting. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive aspects of enlightenment

I've added a section on "Cognitive aspects" to Enlightenment (spiritual). The stage is yours! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User page

Hi. Could you please provide information at your user-page? It would lend you more credibility. You've got plenty of interesting background and opinion to mention. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! I've only been reading through it superficially, but I'll respond at 'the Buddha seeing things as they are'. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Have a look

You might be interested in User:74.60.29.141. He's got a very quick and associative mind. See User talk:74.60.29.141#English course. And did you receive the email I send you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)